|
Post by Winter_King on Feb 7, 2019 9:32:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 7, 2019 10:58:56 GMT
The argument is that we by our very nature fall short of our potential, we fail to live up to what we could be. That is the sin. Sin is a really loaded word but its the one we have. But Adam wasn't born with this imperfect "nature". Once he disobeyed, he became imperfect (or sinful), and we inherited that from birth. That's the sticking point. Why should God arrange for this failing to be passed down through the generations?
Genetics? Or as some have put it: Nothing imperfect can create something perfect. It's a flaw that get passed down. Or as I've heard: It's like a dent in a cake pan. Every cake that is made from that pan will have the same dent... the same imperfection. Isn't that what Christians point to as their "Good News"? A time when they will be "made perfect" - as some seeing going to Heaven and others see as being tested in a state of perfection... just like Adam?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 7, 2019 11:08:08 GMT
I think the idea of even a single state of perfection has issues, but if one allows for one I don't see why considering multiple states of perfection would introduce additional difficulties. If there is more than one state of perfection and they differ, how do you define perfection? Take a perfect circle, it is a circle without flaws if you change it or you introduce a circle that is different to the perfect one, how can either result be perfect? Well... Making the circle bigger doesn't change it's integrity... and it has changed. Filling the circle with different colors and/or patterns changes the circle... without changing it's integrity.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 7, 2019 11:39:53 GMT
But Adam wasn't born with this imperfect "nature". Once he disobeyed, he became imperfect (or sinful), and we inherited that from birth. That's the sticking point. Why should God arrange for this failing to be passed down through the generations?
Genetics? Genetics? Then the question is simply worded, "Why should God arrange for sin to be genetically passed down through the generations?" Genetics doesn't pass EVERYTHING down. You can inherit your father's eye color. You don't inherit his boyhood memories. A sinful human can conceive a sinless child if God makes it so. Jesus was born sinless from sinful humans. (According to Catholics, so was Mary).
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 7, 2019 11:53:31 GMT
Isapop Sometimes I think you just like to be stupid on purpose just to argue stupid points. No. Jesus was God's kid... A creation put into Mary. It's only a story that we've argued about several hundred times in the past. Jesus Christ... literally.. You have had to already know the response to that statement.. You can't be that dumb. You already know the answer.. You just choose ignorance. The rest is you just crying, yet again, about how the story isn't the way that you think it should go. "THE STORY SHOULD BE DIFFERENT!! THE STORY SHOULD BE DIFFERENT!!"
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 7, 2019 12:07:23 GMT
To be clear Christianity is not of the opinion that progress does not happen while being perfect. What was laid out for Adam and Eve was entirely about progress. So it’s a mistake to think that perfection is the same as completeness albeit you may not be saying that anyway. Just a clarification. There’s always things to learn. You can't be perfect and then change to remain perfect. Of course you can. Perfection is not the equivalent of cloning. There will never be a time we are not learning something and learning itself is change and progress.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 7, 2019 12:15:19 GMT
I think the idea of even a single state of perfection has issues, but if one allows for one I don't see why considering multiple states of perfection would introduce additional difficulties. If there is more than one state of perfection and they differ, how do you define perfection? Take a perfect circle, it is a circle without flaws if you change it or you introduce a circle that is different to the perfect one, how can either result be perfect? Perfection would always be relative to parameters of a particular thing. The perfect BLT sandwich would be the worst car ever. Perfection would also be dependent on the rule standard. If there are myriad rules then it's tougher to maintain. I would argue that there are few rules God would expect one to adhere to if we are going by the first ones outlined to Adam & Eve meaning the parameters for perfection would be inclusive of people with different opinions, abilities, & knowledge levels. Even something that was much stricter like the Mosaic Law allowed for differing opinions and views as long as the rules were followed. Ditto for Christianity which has a far smaller rule set.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 7, 2019 12:38:30 GMT
Perfection would always be relative to parameters of a particular thing. The perfect BLT sandwich would be the worst car ever. Perfection would also be dependent on the rule standard. If there are myriad rules then it's tougher to maintain. I would argue that there are few rules God would expect one to adhere to if we are going by the first ones outlined to Adam & Eve meaning the parameters for perfection would be inclusive of people with different opinions, abilities, & knowledge levels. Even something that was much stricter like the Mosaic Law allowed for differing opinions and views as long as the rules were followed. Ditto for Christianity which has a far smaller rule set. What are these parameters though and how is perfection actually defined? What is it that is actually perfect and what is context of perfection? Is not perfection subjective like beliefs. Godly perfection is simple- start out perfect and follow Gods instructions for what keeps you perfect. If you can’t start out perfect than perfection can be purchased for you by one who is a perfect equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 7, 2019 12:54:17 GMT
Isapop Sometimes I think you just like to be stupid on purpose just to argue stupid points. No. Jesus was God's kid... A creation put into Mary. It's only a story that we've argued about several hundred times in the past. Jesus Christ... literally.. You have had to already know the response to that statement.. You can't be that dumb. You already know the answer.. You just choose ignorance. "THE STORY SHOULD BE DIFFERENT!! THE STORY SHOULD BE DIFFERENT!!" If you say Jesus doesn't count as an example it doesn't matter. Take him out of it. Sin didn't have to be inherited any more than memories are inherited. It is still God's decision that sin shall be an inherited trait. He could have decided differently. If God can create a sinless human from the dust of the ground, then he can arrange for a sinless human to be born from a sinful one. He can decide there is no gene for sin. He's God, remember? Ah yes. There's your inevitable "go to" when you have no response to an argument. Just accuse someone of whining. It's not about "wanting a different story". It's about why the existing story only deserves to be seen as a story, and doesn't deserve to be believed.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 7, 2019 13:33:06 GMT
"THE STORY SHOULD BE DIFFERENT!! THE STORY SHOULD BE DIFFERENT!!" If you say Jesus doesn't count as an example it doesn't matter. Take him out of it. Sin didn't have to be inherited any more than memories are inherited. It is still God's decision that sin shall be an inherited trait. He could have decided differently. [POINT PROVEN] If God can create a sinless human from the dust of the ground, then he can arrange for a sinless human to be born from a sinful one. He can decide there is no gene for sin. He's God, remember? Ah yes. There's your inevitable "go to" when you have no response to an argument. Just accuse someone of whining. It's not about "wanting a different story". It's about why the existing story only deserves to be seen as a story, and doesn't deserve to be believed.
Maaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybbbbbeeee the authors see a reason that you're not thinking about... They don't give a shit about your whining. It doesn't stop the story or change it. "THERE CAN'T BE A REASON I'M NOT THINKING OF!! IT DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE BELIEVED!! THERE CAN'T BE A REASON I'M NOT THINKING OF!! IT DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE BELIEVED!"
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 7, 2019 15:17:44 GMT
Godly perfection is simple- start out perfect and follow Gods instructions for what keeps you perfect. If you can’t start out perfect than perfection can be purchased for you by one who is a perfect equivalent. Cryptic and abstract Cool. What is God's perfection, but you would first have to define God? there is nothing cryptic or abstract about it. You follow rules every day and you buy things everyday. If you don’t do that then you’re the weirdo who is cryptic and abstract.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 7, 2019 15:46:14 GMT
I could scale it up or down, make it twice as big, but still a perfect circle. Or change into a perfect sphere. Or change from a perfect green circle to perfect red. Then it was not perfect. unless you are saying it is perfectly circular but it's other elements are not perfect an so can be changed and maintain the stated perfection, but the statement in this context was that the circle was perfect, if is was perfect as a green circle, how can it be perfect as a red circle? You're making the assumption there is only one state of perfection, and that any change from perfection necessarily moves away from it. But I see nothing in common definitions of the word to justify this stance. We've both agreed in this thread that the concept of perfection is problematic, but if we're making the assumption that perfection is a sensible concept, and that a state of perfection is possible, it's reasonable to assume there are more than one of them.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 7, 2019 16:12:05 GMT
If there is more than one state of perfection and they differ, how do you define perfection? Take a perfect circle, it is a circle without flaws if you change it or you introduce a circle that is different to the perfect one, how can either result be perfect? Well... Making the circle bigger doesn't change it's integrity... and it has changed. Filling the circle with different colors and/or patterns changes the circle... without changing it's integrity. Wow, that's perfectly hypnotic!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 7, 2019 20:19:49 GMT
But Adam wasn't born with this imperfect "nature". Once he disobeyed, he became imperfect (or sinful), and we inherited that from birth. That's the sticking point. Why should God arrange for this failing to be passed down through the generations?
Genetics? Or as some have put it: Nothing imperfect can create something perfect. It's a flaw that get passed down. Or as I've heard: It's like a dent in a cake pan. Every cake that is made from that pan will have the same dent... the same imperfection. Isn't that what Christians point to as their "Good News"? A time when they will be "made perfect" - as some seeing going to Heaven and others see as being tested in a state of perfection... just like Adam?
I am glad that you brought up the subject of genetics, as it is one of my keen interests and whilst I am not an expert by any means, I have a relative who is, and as I have been working on our second book which involves detailed genealogy, it is very much on my mind, "However, a warning that any unscientific references to perceived inherited characteristics will be viewed with interest along with scepticism. Human genetics is extremely complex, especially when you go down several generations, with likelihood of specific inherited traits lessening to the point of inconsequence. I am sure you all know that if you inherit 50% from each parent, this becomes 25% at the next generation 12.5 at the next etc, so whilst genetic traits are inherited, specifically attributing them to one ancestor or branch can be problematic. If you go back six generations you get 64 ancestors. You can do the math for increasing generations and probabilities. Specific traits such as mathematical ability, creativity, musicality or a certain shaped nose can be inherited from ANY of these individuals of either sex and more likely in part or a blend." A direct quote from our book. Having stated this ( in context in the book) there are a few inconsistencies with either 'inbred' populations, or populations who have selected partners for a specific (usually sociological as they didn't understand genetics) reason. So, sorry butt you cake pan analogy
Or as I've heard: It's like a dent in a cake pan. Every cake that is made from that pan will have the same dent... the same imperfection.is incorrect in the case of human genetics.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 7, 2019 20:27:07 GMT
Then it was not perfect. unless you are saying it is perfectly circular but it's other elements are not perfect an so can be changed and maintain the stated perfection, but the statement in this context was that the circle was perfect, if is was perfect as a green circle, how can it be perfect as a red circle? You're making the assumption there is only one state of perfection, and that any change from perfection necessarily moves away from it. But I see nothing in common definitions of the word to justify this stance. We've both agreed in this thread that the concept of perfection is problematic, but if we're making the assumption that perfection is a sensible concept, and that a state of perfection is possible, it's reasonable to assume there are more than one of them. Although I hate it when other posters tell me what I think HOWEVER it seems that with Cool and his fellow whatever they are type of 'Christians' that they, ...are coming from the standpoint that God is 'perfection,' we are made in his image and because of the laws that God himself instituted, it is all downhill for everyone from there on, with one failsafe clause that you accept whatever it is he is reselling to get to whatever he says is really good ie heaven or salvation or a safety card from doomsday or whatever it happens to be in which ever branch of the religion it is promulgated.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 7, 2019 20:41:35 GMT
You're making the assumption there is only one state of perfection, and that any change from perfection necessarily moves away from it. But I see nothing in common definitions of the word to justify this stance. We've both agreed in this thread that the concept of perfection is problematic, but if we're making the assumption that perfection is a sensible concept, and that a state of perfection is possible, it's reasonable to assume there are more than one of them. Although I hate it when other posters tell me what I think HOWEVER it seems that with Cool and his fellow whatever they are type of 'Christians' that they, ...are coming from the standpoint that God is 'perfection,' we are made in his image and because of the laws that God himself instituted, it is all downhill for everyone from there on, with one failsafe clause that you accept whatever it is he is reselling to get to whatever he says is really good ie heaven or salvation or a safety card from doomsday or whatever it happens to be in which ever branch of the religion it is promulgated. tou aren’t speaking for me.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 7, 2019 21:22:39 GMT
Genetics? Or as some have put it: Nothing imperfect can create something perfect. It's a flaw that get passed down. Or as I've heard: It's like a dent in a cake pan. Every cake that is made from that pan will have the same dent... the same imperfection. I am glad that you brought up the subject of genetics, as it is one of my keen interests and whilst I am not an expert by any means, I have a relative who is, and as I have been working on our second book which involves detailed genealogy, it is very much on my mind, "However, a warning that any unscientific references to perceived inherited characteristics will be viewed with interest along with scepticism. Human genetics is extremely complex, especially when you go down several generations, with likelihood of specific inherited traits lessening to the point of inconsequence. I am sure you all know that if you inherit 50% from each parent, this becomes 25% at the next generation 12.5 at the next etc, so whilst genetic traits are inherited, specifically attributing them to one ancestor or branch can be problematic. If you go back six generations you get 64 ancestors. You can do the math for increasing generations and probabilities. Specific traits such as mathematical ability, creativity, musicality or a certain shaped nose can be inherited from ANY of these individuals of either sex and more likely in part or a blend." A direct quote from our book. Having stated this ( in context in the book) there are a few inconsistencies with either 'inbred' populations, or populations who have selected partners for a specific (usually sociological as they didn't understand genetics) reason. So, sorry butt you cake pan analogy
Or as I've heard: It's like a dent in a cake pan. Every cake that is made from that pan will have the same dent... the same imperfection.is incorrect in the case of human genetics. How can you have so many words and still not make a point? I don't know about you... "butt"... both my parents were human.. and their parents... human.. and theirs.. Sure you can go back 6 generations... but... they'd still be humans. We're not talking about some specific gene like blue eyes that would get lost in the mix as generations went on... It's the basic human composition that's being discussed.. And.. analogies aren't meant to be perfect. None are. "It's like" doesn't mean "It is exactly as". Edit: The point is that a dented cake pan can never make a perfect cake.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 7, 2019 21:26:26 GMT
I am glad that you brought up the subject of genetics, as it is one of my keen interests and whilst I am not an expert by any means, I have a relative who is, and as I have been working on our second book which involves detailed genealogy, it is very much on my mind, "However, a warning that any unscientific references to perceived inherited characteristics will be viewed with interest along with scepticism. Human genetics is extremely complex, especially when you go down several generations, with likelihood of specific inherited traits lessening to the point of inconsequence. I am sure you all know that if you inherit 50% from each parent, this becomes 25% at the next generation 12.5 at the next etc, so whilst genetic traits are inherited, specifically attributing them to one ancestor or branch can be problematic. If you go back six generations you get 64 ancestors. You can do the math for increasing generations and probabilities. Specific traits such as mathematical ability, creativity, musicality or a certain shaped nose can be inherited from ANY of these individuals of either sex and more likely in part or a blend." A direct quote from our book. Having stated this ( in context in the book) there are a few inconsistencies with either 'inbred' populations, or populations who have selected partners for a specific (usually sociological as they didn't understand genetics) reason. So, sorry butt you cake pan analogy
Or as I've heard: It's like a dent in a cake pan. Every cake that is made from that pan will have the same dent... the same imperfection.is incorrect in the case of human genetics. How can you have so many words and still not make a point? I don't know about you... "butt"... both my parents were human.. and their parents... human.. and theirs.. Sure you can go back 6 generations... but... they'd still be humans. We're not talking about some specific gene like blue eyes that would get lost in the mix as generations went on... It's the basic human composition that's being discussed.. And.. analogies aren't meant to be perfect. None are. "It's like" doesn't mean "It is exactly as". OK we will continue with your analogy. What constitutes the dent in the pan that continues down the generations unaltered? This is not possible with the 50/50 mix of male and female genes at each human level of procreation. Simple enough?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 7, 2019 21:59:07 GMT
How can you have so many words and still not make a point? I don't know about you... "butt"... both my parents were human.. and their parents... human.. and theirs.. Sure you can go back 6 generations... but... they'd still be humans. We're not talking about some specific gene like blue eyes that would get lost in the mix as generations went on... It's the basic human composition that's being discussed.. And.. analogies aren't meant to be perfect. None are. "It's like" doesn't mean "It is exactly as". OK we will continue with your analogy. What constitutes the dent in the pan that continues down the generations unaltered? This is not possible with the 50/50 mix of male and female genes at each human level of procreation. Simple enough? are you saying humans can’t have two eyes for thousands of generations? Odd
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 7, 2019 21:59:18 GMT
How can you have so many words and still not make a point? I don't know about you... "butt"... both my parents were human.. and their parents... human.. and theirs.. Sure you can go back 6 generations... but... they'd still be humans. We're not talking about some specific gene like blue eyes that would get lost in the mix as generations went on... It's the basic human composition that's being discussed.. And.. analogies aren't meant to be perfect. None are. "It's like" doesn't mean "It is exactly as". OK we will continue with your analogy. What constitutes the dent in the pan that continues down the generations unaltered? This is not possible with the 50/50 mix of male and female genes at each human level of procreation.Simple enough? Well... considering that the pan isn't fucking the toaster to make the cake... It's not meant as an direct explanation of what happens when an imperfect mommy and an imperfect daddy fall in love.. other than being a simple way to illustrate why those imperfect parents will give birth to imperfect children.
|
|